have a boost in their funding, but I do understand the position of cities that are, if you like, the focal point for many people to travel towards them, the extra pressure that results in. I know that from my previous job, and it's why I will pay very close attention to what she is saying.
Leader of the Opposition
0:20 ↗
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and can I congratulate the Prime Minister on his stamina — three hours yesterday. Yesterday he faced 125 questions from MPs across the House. Of course, Labour and the Lib Dems just wanted more government spending as taxpayers' money. But can he name a single spending request? To which he answered, no.
Prime Minister, what I can say to the right honourable lady is I was quite clear in my statement about the need to get the welfare bill down. I do not want to be a Prime Minister that sees a situation where we have so many people in their 20s not in education, employment or training. I can't defend that. And I want to change that by giving more support to young people so that we start investing in their success, Mr. Speaker, rather than paying for failure as we have done for many years under successive governments. Now, this seems to me, Mr. Speaker, to be one area where we can both engage in problem solving rather than point scoring, and I hope the right honourable lady will take up my offer on that point.
Leader of the Opposition
1:51 ↗
Mr. Speaker, he avoided the question. He did not say no to a single spending request. And personally, I think it's delightful that he wants to make everyone happy. But a Prime Minister needs to be a leader, not a people pleaser. He's talking about working together on welfare. I already made that offer, but that does mean cuts. He wants to bring the welfare bill down by spending more money. Yesterday the Prime Minister told the House that his summer of promises would be paid for by reprioritising within government. So what exactly has he cut?
Well, in terms of what has he cut? Tax is the simple answer to that question. Mr. Speaker, within days of taking office, I indicated that we would remove VAT off electricity bills. And that, Mr. Speaker, will help people with the cost of living. And then days later, with the support of my right honourable friend, the Chancellor, we said that there would be a cut in business rates for pubs, social clubs, live music venues. So this government lowering the cost of living, lowering the cost of business, and that is what we will continue to do. And can I say to the right honourable lady, it has to be fully funded, and those commitments are fully funded. And we made a decision early to be clear about our priorities. Digital ID is not a priority for me or for this government. We reallocated the funding, and we made those commitments as a result.
Leader of the Opposition
3:44 ↗
Mr. Speaker, I asked what he cut. He says tax cuts. He hasn't said where the money is coming from. He talks about digital ID. Yeah, I know he said digital ID, but the chief secretary to the former Prime Minister said that there was no money allocated for digital ID. You can't cut something that never existed in the first place. Mr. Speaker, Lord O'Neill, a close friend of the Prime Minister, said yesterday's statement in the Commons was the last thing investors wanted to hear. Lord O'Neill is a serious economist. He knows what he's talking about, and sure enough, yesterday the cost of government borrowing rose to its highest in 18 years. How does he plan to tackle the government's rising debt costs?
Well, can I say to the right honourable lady, I've worked with Jim O'Neill for 10 years. Jim O'Neill always gives me candid advice. We don't always agree, but he and I worked together to turn Greater Manchester from a former industrial heartland to the fastest growing city region in the country. They complain, Mr. Speaker, but where are their ideas about growth? When they were in government, we saw 14 years of stagnant growth. We saw 14 years of debt rising as a percentage of GDP. I would say to her that the turbulence on global markets is because of that exposure that they left behind. We are turning that corner, Mr. Speaker. In the first half of this year, we've had the fastest growth in the G7. Borrowing fell to its lowest level in six years. We're cutting the deficit faster than any other G7 country. I say to the party opposite, particularly to the right honourable lady, that is problem solving rather than point scoring.
Leader of the Opposition
5:54 ↗
Mr. Speaker, I don't know what any of that has to do with tackling the cost of increasing debt. Mr. Speaker, collaborating with Jim O'Neill is not how we're going to get the debt cost down. And he said yesterday that the markets would be worried. The markets are clearly worried that we now have a spendthrift Prime Minister who wants to say yes to everyone but cannot tell us where the money is coming from. He needs to pay for all his new promises, and he has a choice: higher taxes, more borrowing, or spending cuts. Yesterday he said change begins with honesty. So will he be honest and tell us: is he preparing to raise taxes again? Yes or no?
Can I say to the right honourable lady, I've already indicated my first moves were to cut tax, but I'm not going to do what any Prime Minister has done and write the budget here. That will be the matter for my right honourable friend. But can I also say to her that he and I took a deliberate decision to set an early date for the budget so that we reduced the period for prolonged speculation of the kind that she is wanting us to indulge in today. But can I also say to her, and indeed to the whole of her new shadow cabinet, the majority of whom were part of a government that lasted for 49 days — a government, a short-lived government that crashed confidence in the economy, hammered people's mortgages. She took a decision at the weekend. She removed a shadow chancellor who said that the Truss mini budget was a mistake, and she replaced that shadow chancellor with one that helped to write the Truss mini budget. And dare I remind the House, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition herself is on record of saying that Liz Truss is 100% right. What other thing can I say, Mr. Speaker, in response to all of that other than God help us?
Leader of the Opposition
8:18 ↗
Mr. Speaker, the whole House will have heard that he did not rule out tax rises. Instead, what he did was lots of point scoring. He says he wants new politics. He says he wants honesty. So why is he pretending that a junior minister wrote that budget? The fact is, the cost of borrowing now is far more than it ever was under Liz Truss. Mr. Speaker, the reason why that budget failed is because spending was announced before the money to pay for it, which is exactly what he is doing right now. He says it's the new politics. It's the same old Labour politics: tax and spend. He did not rule out tax rises. And what markets see is a government that cannot control its spending. So the markets will charge us more to borrow. That means higher mortgage rates for families. It makes life more difficult for businesses, and that pushes up the cost of living for everyone. Higher borrowing costs are the biggest threat to family finances. So will he rule out any more borrowing that will make people poorer?
But can I say to her something I said earlier? Debt was rising as a percentage of GDP under the government that she served in, and her new shadow chancellor served in, who was hardly some PPS to the Defence Secretary — with all respect to my right honourable friend, the Secretary — he was in the Treasury, Mr. Speaker, as a senior minister on the day of the Truss budget. She mentions mortgage rates. Well, that was the day that they spiked, and that was the day the British public were hammered by the previous government. We are taking the action needed to get debt down. This will be a government grounded in fiscal responsibility. It will stick to the fiscal rules, but at the same time we will help reduce cost of living pressure on our constituents, and that's the approach that we will take, and that's the one I would suggest to the party opposite they should follow too.
Mr. Speaker, he is the Prime Minister now. He needs to answer the questions instead of spending time attacking someone who has more private sector experience than his entire cabinet. I asked him whether he would rule out more borrowing. He did not do so. We spend more servicing our debt than we do on defence — almost double. There is war in Europe. Mr. Speaker, yesterday Germany confirmed that Russia was behind the attack on Leipzig airport. Tensions are so high the director of the CIA flew to Moscow. We need the plan to hit 3% on defence now, but the armed forces won't know what they'll be getting until next July's spending review. There is a simple answer to this: cut welfare spending and invest that money in our defence now. Mr. Speaker, the honeymoon is over. Isn't it time for the Prime Minister to ditch the vibes and get serious about defending our nation?
I like the vibes. Well, can I start with the serious point that she made, Mr. Speaker, and it was the announcement by the German government yesterday in relation to the attack in Leipzig. And I think that should unite the House in sending complete condemnation of that attack by Russia and complete solidarity in this House to support both Germany and to support Ukraine, and that position will not change. And it takes me to defence. The very reason I appointed this Chancellor to his position is because of his strong commitment to the defence of our country and to defence spending. We will fully fund the defence investment plan. And at the spending review, we will set out a plan to meet our NATO commitments by 2035. There is no problem with our commitment to defence, Mr. Speaker. But more broadly, the honourable lady has made a lot of accusations there about what went wrong. But I go back to what was the position that she left. The country was not heading in the right direction. Now we are heading in the right direction. Yesterday I laid out a clear, coherent, credible plan for growth based on 10 years of delivering it myself. This is grounded in reality. I want to take it to all parts of the country, and it's all about bringing back a sense of positivity, Mr. Speaker, a sense of possibility, growth in every postcode. Let this country believe in itself again. Let people have some hope. And that is what this government will do.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is really promising and exciting evidence about the successful use of psychedelic therapy treatments for trauma, mental health, PTSD and end-of-life distress. Unfortunately, because many psychedelics are Schedule One controlled drugs, it makes access for clinical research bureaucratic and difficult. So would the Prime Minister, and indeed members across the House, consider supporting my amendments to the health bill next week when it returns, which would keep safeguards in place but remove some of the barriers to some of this important research and treatment?
Well, can I thank my honourable friend and pay tribute to his campaign on this particular issue. I was talking about getting the economy going in all parts of the country, an innovation-led economy, and that applies to research and research into life sciences as well. And I believe strongly, Mr. Speaker, we must address all barriers to high-quality research in the life sciences. I'm happy to look at his amendment, particularly, Mr. Speaker. I will ask a health minister to meet him to discuss it. But of course, any changes must be evidence-based, proportionate, and maintain our safeguards.
Sir Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister said yesterday that Brexit ushered in a decade of low growth and stalled regeneration. He is right. Our economy is stuck in this mess thanks to the Conservatives and the leader of Reform and their terrible Brexit deal. Unless we grow the economy, there is no way we can end the cost of living crisis or cut the cost of borrowing for the government. The answer is staring him in the face: join the single market, get a new deal with Europe, and cut costs for families, businesses, and government. It's the bold step our country desperately needs. Will the Prime Minister take it?
Well, can I thank the right honourable gentleman, and I think he is absolutely right to share the analysis that I laid out yesterday. It's clear the low growth we've had, the decade of low growth, has been partly a result of Brexit, and the sooner the party opposite accepts that, the more we can start to face up to Britain's future and where do we go from here. I do want a closer relationship. I will build on the work of my predecessor. There are issues facing British farming right now, and there are issues facing British steel right now, and the Made in Europe agenda could pose significant problems for British steel. So as he will know, we are approaching a UK-EU summit in the next couple of months. It is imperative, I believe, that we work hard to get a good deal for British steel, for British farming, as part of that new deal that he talks about.
Well, I hope at that summit he will negotiate a good deal for our country, our economy, and our defence. And that means rejoining the single market. But moving on, Mr. Speaker, North Devon's maternity unit has been closed for three weeks due to staff shortages. So women now have to travel up to two hours to give birth. When my kids were born, I can't imagine the extra stress and anxiety that would have caused us. Women are even being taught how to give birth in their cars. This should be unthinkable in our country. So will the Prime Minister commit to reopening North Devon's maternity unit in days, not weeks? And will we stop maternity closures across the country, so expectant mums never have to face travelling such terrifying distances?
So let me give a direct answer. I will commit to reopening, but not within days. I don't think I am in a position to make that commitment today, Mr. Speaker, but I am again in agreement with him that it's not acceptable for his constituents, for people living in the North Devon area, to have to travel that far. Apologies — I realise his constituency is somewhere else. So let me take that away, and let me also say to him with honesty there are structural issues here affecting maternity services across the UK, because this is not the only hospital where there have been difficulties. And I am aware from my former time as Secretary of State for Health that there have been long-standing shortages of midwives across the country, and I believe it is right that we look at all of those issues. But I can give him a guarantee that my right honourable friend, the Health Secretary, is looking at those issues following the recent maternity reviews that we've had.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A wise man recently called for good growth in every postcode and hope in every heart, and in Cudon these cannot come soon enough. GWR expansion could provide Cudon's young people with world-class employment and training close to their home. But cuts to investment in rail infrastructure around East Cudon station by the previous Conservative government means these opportunities could still be out of reach, because Cudon's young people physically cannot get to them. So will the Prime Minister look again at the Cudon area modelling scheme, back my campaign to unblock the Cudon bottleneck, and can he outline what his government is doing to give young people in Cudon East access the opportunities that they deserve?
Well, can I say to my honourable friend, we certainly will do that. I am in no doubt of the importance of good transport connectivity to young people's life chances, and I will ask Number 10 North to make contact with her so that we can get that scheme back on track. More broadly, we do need to change the way we support young people. And I've announced already a change to education so that we have a technical path for young people from 14, so that we give young people a path towards good T-levels, BTECs, work placements, degree apprenticeships, and we support them with travel costs, which is something that I did in Greater Manchester. Bringing back hope very much starts with our young people, Mr. Speaker. Give them a clear path from school towards a good job, and that is something that the current education system that was put in place by Michael Gove has sadly failed to do.
Can I just say I admire the Prime Minister at least is answering detailed questions. My problem is I'm not going to get through this, and both will be in trouble with back benches when we don't make it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the people of Northern Ireland are absolutely scared at the moment. We have poisonous parading disputes and border post brawls. Meanwhile, the Northern Ireland Assembly has no budget. Now, Prime Minister, whenever we met last week, I think there was an acknowledgement that we can either have an unreformed Stormont or we can have sound public finances in Northern Ireland, but we cannot have both. Alliance have led the way on calls for changing our broken system of government in Northern Ireland. This is your chance to leave a legacy of functioning government in Northern Ireland. Will he act?
I will work with her and her colleagues on precisely that. I was in Northern Ireland with the Northern Ireland Secretary last week. Our first responsibility is to get Stormont government up and running and functioning properly with a budget. I've empowered the Northern Ireland Secretary to go into talks to resolve that issue and the border issues about reform. We can continue that conversation once we've got that in place.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm delighted that North Somerset is finally getting two fantastic new stations at Pill and Portishead with the reopening of the railway line. But, and I hate to sound greedy, with Bristol Airport's potential expansion on the horizon, it risks becoming one of the worst connected major airports in the country. Will my right honourable friend the Prime Minister agree that now we need a proper mass transit system for North Somerset and Wark, linking Felton, the new Woodspring development, Long Ashton, and the wider economic area?
Well, I know my honourable friend worked hard on getting those new stations. People in Portishead and Pill have waited far too long for those new stations, but they're now on the way. And can I say it does reflect what I was saying to the House yesterday. The big cities of England — and I'm talking about Leeds, talking about Bristol — they should have mass transit systems, Mr. Speaker. And I will work with the wonderful mayor of the West of England, Helen Godwin, to make progress on that, to connect Bristol, its new arena, the station, the development at Temple Meads, into a mass transit system that takes Bristol forward.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can I welcome the Prime Minister to his place? Now, the Prime Minister knows the importance of protecting local green belt. Indeed, he made it a key part of his by-election campaign in Makerfield. It's incredibly important in my constituency too, where there's an 85% increase in the housing target and we are 89% green belt. The Prime Minister says that he wants to do things differently and share the burden across the country. Will he meet with me to discuss a new path forwards?
Well, I thank him for his question. It is about getting a balance, isn't it? Yes, we need to protect green belt where we can, but we also need to build the homes that people need, and it is about striking a balance. In Greater Manchester, I always took a brownfield-first approach, and that's what I will do. And I've asked the Chancellor to work with my cabinet colleagues to release more public land so that we can build more homes on brownfield land. But I do understand the concerns that he's raising. I will ask the housing minister to meet him to see if we can further build some common cause. But there is a balance to be struck. And I would say to the party opposite, it's important they do not turn their face away from building the new homes this country needs.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and welcome back. And can I also welcome the Prime Minister to his role. We have many shared passions: sport, music, and a deep sense of community. I know we both have a strong desire to ensure that everyone in our country has a sense of pride, identity, and belonging, that everyone feels safe and no one feels lonely. But sadly, that isn't always the case. So what steps is he taking to support people in communities like Spen Valley who may feel isolated or are dealing with antisocial behaviour such as speeding and dangerous driving, inappropriate use of e-bikes and off-road e-scooters and off-road bikes, and fireworks, to give residents confidence that their concerns have been taken seriously?
Well, I do thank my honourable friend for this question, because she's speaking for many people at home who'll be nodding away when she says what she said. I spoke to these issues in the Makerfield by-election, where we had an illegal waste tip that just looked like nobody was taking any action on fireworks. I think there is a case for going further regulating those. But on antisocial behaviour more broadly, I supported Greater Manchester Police in taking the toughest possible approach to rooting out antisocial behaviour through Operation Vulcan. I think it can be extended elsewhere. We shouldn't accept that this is just the daily norm in communities. I happen to support the broken window theory of policing: if you let small things go, bigger things come along, and we should change the way we think about neighbourhood policing, as the Home Secretary is doing.
Our new Plaid Cymru government has laid the foundations for change, showing what Wales can achieve with the powers we have. The Prime Minister says devolving powers means better public services, and I agree with him. But policing in Wales is still controlled from afar here in Westminster. So will he please put his devolution instincts into practice and confirm that devolving policing will be on the table when he meets the First Minister next month?
The approach I will take, Mr. Speaker, and I say this to the honourable lady — and we did meet the Deputy First Minister last week at Port Talbot — where proposals come from the Senedd government, we will give them a fair consideration. We do need to work together to get growth going. We do need to secure the future of Port Talbot together. And if that can be done with more locally devolved power across Wales, then I am absolutely ready to work with her and the First Minister on that.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The British people should be under no illusion that the nation faces a significantly increased threat level, especially from Russia. But also we have a US leadership for whom European security is no longer a focus or priority. And that is why it is imperative that we invest in our armed forces in the here and now rather than be sorry later. Indeed, defence is definitely one area where vibes alone just isn't going to be enough. So rather than kick the can down the road waiting for a fiscal event in a future year, will the Prime Minister urgently commit to charting a pathway to reach 3% of GDP spend on defence by 2030, which, as his Chancellor rightly noted, is critical to keep our country safe?
Well, I've made that commitment, made it very clear, Mr. Speaker, and I have done for a considerable period of time. And I was in Ukraine last week for a very specific reason to repeat it on the world stage there. So the honourable gentleman can be absolutely sure of that. But I also think alongside our commitment to defence, we also have to build the resilience of Britain. We need to ensure that the maximum amount of that funding committed to the defence investment plan goes back into the reindustrialisation of our communities, that we do more to maintain sovereign manufacturing and production capability here. And this will be a theme of my government: making sure that the British taxpayers' money goes in to supporting industry in our own country to make us more resilient going into the future.
Mr. Speaker, my community-led homes private members' bill aims to help combat widening inequality in the UK. In Cornwall alone, during the last decade, through tax loopholes, over half a billion pounds of taxpayers' money has been handed out to second home owners, while the housing problems of locals have got significantly worse. And the planning system, which is fuelled by greed rather than need, simply allows land value speculators to fill their boots while the housing problems get worse. So will the Prime Minister meet with me so that we can identify tools within my private members' bill to empower communities to address that desperate need?
Prime Minister, what can I say to the honourable gentleman? I've worked with him over many years, and I remember in the coalition years he didn't always take that line, and I respect him for that. I will look very closely at his private members' bill. How about this? I will agree here and now to a meeting with him and all Cornish MPs to discuss what we might also do alongside his bill, what we might do to put powers and levers within the devolution deal to deal with those very specific issues he's just raised in relation to second homes in Cornwall.
So excited about the return of the Bayeux Tapestry coming back to our shores for the first time in almost a thousand years, and testament to this Labour government's work to strengthen our relations with European neighbours. Hastings has often been at the centre of historical events, but we have not felt the benefits, and we rank in the bottom 10 places nationally for social mobility. Thanks to my campaign, the young people I represent will get free priority access to the tapestry exhibition and not be priced out by the cost of a ticket. Excellent. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that this is great news and that the British Museum must do all it can to ensure as many people from my area can see the exhibition?
What can I say to my honourable friend? I will relay that very message to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer who runs the British Museum tonight, and I hope I will do so with the support of the benches opposite, that we want the maximum number of kids to have access to stand in front of that tapestry while it's here in the UK. It's a major moment in our island's history, and it's such a powerful one. They learn about it in school; they should be able to stand in front of it. And can I just credit her for the amazing campaign that she has run on this issue. I know her school children in her own constituency will be there, but I can hear in her voice she wants it for every child in this country. And let's see what we can do.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I applaud the Prime Minister's focus on civil society and on support for young people, but the fact is that in his time as Mayor of Greater Manchester, youth employment there did not improve. In fact, it got worse. And no amount of taxpayer-funded support is going to fix that. So will the Prime Minister accept that the way to get young people into work is to provide meaningful tax cuts for businesses and also to ensure that people who can work should be working?
I indicated that earlier today, Mr. Speaker, that young people who can work should be working. I believe they want to work. The question is, have we always given them the support that they need? As Mayor of Greater Manchester, proudly I delivered a huge increase in the work placements attached to T-levels that benefited young people. I introduced a free bus pass for 16 to 18 year olds to connect them to opportunity. And actually the rise in needs was not the same in Greater Manchester as in other parts of the country. So we might want to go back and check that on this issue. Let's work to get the best possible package we can to support our young people. It is too hard growing up as it is at this moment in time. We can make it better if we do it with cross-party support. That's the best message we could send to the next generation.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Labour government has already delivered real investment for Bedford, including our community diagnostic centre, a care centre, and funding for the Putnoe walk-in centre. I was pleased to open Bedford's new mental health crisis house this summer. But, Mr. Speaker, the inpatient mental health services my constituents lost in 2017 have never been replaced. So will the Prime Minister commit to working with me to take the next steps towards restoring adult and young people's inpatient mental health provision in Bedford, so that my constituents can access the right care in the right place at the right time?
That last point, Mr. Speaker, is the point. And with mental health services, we have to do better on that, and the Health Secretary absolutely agrees with this. It's why we committed in the summer to community-based mental health provisions to make it easier for people to access that provision. I am aware of his concerns about Bedford Hospital. I will work with the Health Secretary to address them with him.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not answer any of the questions the Leader of the Opposition put to him on spending over the summer. The markets were clearly anxious when he failed to articulate the fiscal rules to Victoria Derbyshire. In his statement yesterday, he waxed lyrical about a decade where we had a three-day week and blackouts, presumably because he lacked the music. But we now know what the international capital markets have made of that. Can he now, in front of this House, confirm what the fiscal rules are and categorically say that the government will stick to them?
No borrowing to fund day-to-day spending, debt falling as a percentage of GDP by the end of the parliament. And yes, we will.
So, we're going to leave Prime Minister's questions there. The first outing for Andy Burnham as Prime Minister, facing questions from the Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch and many others as well. Let's introduce my guests for this part of the programme. We're joined by Douglas Alexander, who is the Scotland Secretary, Julia Lopez, shadow business secretary, and Henry Zeffman, the BBC's chief political correspondent. Henry, what did you make of that? I mean, Andy Burnham, there's a lot of talk about what the style would be because he wants to introduce a different kind of style, collaboration, but PMQs doesn't really lend itself to that, does it?
No. I think we've seen quite a few Prime Ministers and leaders of the opposition come into PMQs talking about a different kind of style and then pretty quickly, be it in one session or within several sessions, our adversarial politics, which is there in the physical layout of the chamber, does assert itself. Look, I thought it was a great spectacle, which is really good news for those of us who watch it every week. And I thought part of the reason that it was a great spectacle is that, and we saw this also yesterday in the House of Commons, and we'll see it again and again, you have a very clear ideological clash. And I think both Andy Burnham and Kemi Badenoch, certainly yesterday and again today, have identified that and embraced that. They both openly think very different things about what Britain should look like and what Britain's problems are and where those problems derive from to each other. Of course that was true of Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch as well. But I think Andy Burnham perhaps more enthusiastic about articulating where those differences lie, and I think nowhere are those differences more clear than on the economy. And I think that, as well as the fact that there is a budget coming in less than two months, is why Badenoch chose that subject for her first PMQs. Just one other difference that I noticed that I thought was interesting. And I don't know if it's deliberate strategy or just whether it's one of those things, but I think one of the reasons the Starmer-Badenoch spectacle wasn't necessarily always quite so good was that Keir Starmer would often take a question from Kemi Badenoch and use it as an opportunity to attack Reform UK. Andy Burnham didn't do that today. He threw the questions back at Kemi Badenoch and the Conservatives and attacked the Conservatives and their record. I just think that's something worth watching as the polling landscape maybe gets a little more complicated over the coming weeks and months.
Douglas, what did you make of the first outing for Andy Burnham as Prime Minister at Prime Minister's questions?
So, you're right. It was Andy's first outing as Prime Minister at the dispatch box answering Prime Minister's questions. And it obliges you to take a longer perspective. I was thinking just as he was starting to speak that as a very young backbencher, I used to help prepare Tony Blair for Prime Minister's questions. Even for as accomplished a speaker as Tony Blair, he found the spectacle of Prime Minister's questions, as Henry describes it, a really intimidating part of his week. And honestly, I think there will be quiet satisfaction in Downing Street today about how that went. Not only did he, I think, be pretty consistent with how he said he was going to show up to Prime Minister's questions. He didn't get dragged into the gutter or the sewer, he tried earnestly to answer questions that came from all sides of the House on all kinds of issues. But also, I think he did manage to communicate in his final answer to Kemi the sense of animating hope that's been a feature of the first six weeks. And in that sense, I think they will be pretty pleased with how things went in Downing Street today, and deservedly so. It is a really hard thing to get right. It often causes a lot of frustration amongst your viewers, as you know, and I think a lot of viewers watching today will have thought this actually does represent a change and quite an interesting one to watch.
Julia, yeah, it's interesting. Andy Burnham has set a great deal of political capital on the idea that he is a very different type of politician. It's not going to be politics as usual. It's going to be less combative. He's going to do things differently. But we've come out of that exchange between him and Kemi without any answers. I just think he's probably better at disguising the fact that he hasn't answered the question than Starmer is. But you know, the seriousness of what's happened this week in terms of the leap in government borrowing costs is going to blow all of his plans out of the water. And I don't think the markets will have had any sense of how he plans to deal with that gigantic change to how he's going to cope with the next few months. That's
going to cause him no end of problems and it blows up his whole style of politics. He's very hemmed in and the question really is can he vibes this out and I think that's going to become quite clear very quickly that he can't vibes it out.
Well, let's talk about that. And in particular something that Kemi Badenoch talked about which was the adviser Jim O'Neill. He's a former Treasury minister saying Burnham adviser warns government to get real as debt crisis rises ahead of first PMQ. So this is the borrowing cost for the government effectively have gone up. I mean this is a huge issue, isn't it? It could potentially derail a lot of things that Andy Burnham wants to do.
So Jim O'Neill is a friend of Andy Burnham's although we support different football teams. It's important to recognise but in that sense advisers advise and ministers decide. And Andy was very clear in recognising that we will govern recognising both the fiscal challenges that we inherited, the debt to GDP ratio as a consequence of the rise in borrowing post the financial crisis and all of the changes that we saw running up until July 2024. He articulated the fiscal rules and actually what we saw I thought was a pretty clichéd performance by Kemi in the sense that every leader of the opposition does it. It's a miserable job being leader of the opposition. You have to test the prime minister and see are you going to raise taxes? Are you going to raise borrowing fully aware that no prime minister ever answers those questions because rightly and reasonably that's the responsibility of the chancellor at the end of October when he sets out the budget and in that sense I thought Andy dealt pretty deftly with some pretty familiar and rather clichéd questions. Are there significant challenges in relation to the international bond markets what we've seen in Japan what we've seen in the United States? Yes of course that's why it's important that the last chancellor established the fiscal headroom that was established at the last budget is why it's important that Andy rearticulated the financial and fiscal rules that we will adhere to today. But there's a process by which you address these challenges and that's by the fiscal event that will take place at the end of October which is the budget.
I mean it was interesting Julia because Kemi Badenoch talked and quoted Jim O'Neill and actually he was saying to all politicians you've got to get real about what's happening here and he says on things like the triple lock for example the state pension triple lock which guarantees a certain rise for those receiving the state pension. I mean your party is not prepared to look at that.
It's interesting. Andy Burnham pitched himself to the Labour Party that he would be more left-wing than Kemi, but he knows that causes him problems in terms of the financial market. So early on he was briefing out that Jim O'Neill was going to join his team. Jim O'Neill did not accept the job offer because I think Jim O'Neill shares the market's concerns about how fiscally responsible Andy Burnham's going to be and how he's going to square the circle of the expectations that he set versus what he's actually able to deliver. And there has been discussion about the triple lock today. We've always been clear that the priority number one is to get the welfare budget under control. Now, interestingly, Andy Burnham speaks the talk of suggesting that he understands the welfare budget is going to need to be...
I want to let's talk about in a second, but first of all, on the triple lock, Jim O'Neill, who Kemi is not quoted in there in the House of Commons, he is saying you got to look at the triple lock.
And Kemi said that the priority is not looking at this triple lock. The priority is...
She's not listening to his advice either.
Our view is that the first thing you do as a government is to get the welfare budget under control. It is ballooning and nobody in government is dealing with that first order problem. And that is what we are offering to help Labour deal with because they couldn't get the votes through to cut the welfare budget in the first place. That is the first thing that we would do.
Can you take the Conservatives' help on getting down the welfare budget?
Well, we're already reforming the welfare budget.
We're reforming it. That's not the same as getting the bill down, is it?
Let me come to that. Firstly, in relation to the health element of the universal credit certainly. Secondly, in relation to Motability, there are reforms happening just now. Thirdly, we have the Timms review looking at aspects of the welfare reform agenda. And we also have the Alan Milburn review looking at needs. So if you say to me, are we serious about addressing these challenges? Yes, absolutely. But the privilege of being an independent adviser is that you can make a single recommendation on a single year of policy. The reality is any responsible government has to look at these in the round. Frankly, it was the Conservatives who allowed the welfare bill to explode in this country. And in that sense, forgive some scepticism on our part as to whether Kemi and her team, most of whom served in the last government, actually are particularly well qualified to solve the problem that they created, even if they pretend to put on a firefighter uniform. We know who the arsonists are.
Well, I'd be very interested. Douglas, can you tell us when we can expect to see the votes to cut the welfare bill coming forward? Because that effectively sunk Kemi's premiership. Andy Burnham knows that and he has no desire to take on his backbenchers because he knows that they're not fully behind him on this. So what he's doing is he's saying, 'Oh, I do care about welfare, but I'm going to try and spend some more money on education to deal with it.' But is there going to be any more money spent on education?
I have the privilege of having known Andy for more than...
No, Douglas, you're about to not answer my question. When can we...
Give a chance then you can make that judgment?
Well, I suspect you're going to try and divert us to a different angle, which is effectively what Andy Burnham is trying to...
Answer your question now or do you want me to answer your question? My question was when are we likely to see votes on the welfare bill being cut because this is extremely urgent. I mean you will have seen what's happened, you know, day one of him being back in Westminster and the markets have blown out his budgetary plans. So this is going to get really crunchy very quickly. Right. So when do we expect a clear sense of Labour getting a grip on the public finances?
Let's start with the facts. Are you honestly asserting that as a consequence of Andy Burnham's statement yesterday, we've seen a rise in borrowing costs for the United States and Japan?
I don't think that was what I was asserting. I asked you the question about when the reality is...
I ask you a question about a global given how, as we heard on the radio this morning, there are global movements in relation to bond prices that of course affects gilt yields in the United Kingdom. But it's facile to assert that somehow Andy Burnham in his first statement in parliament is responsible for global movements in the bond yield internationally. Asserting your question to a question in relation to welfare which is I have far greater faith in Pat McFadden as the Work and Pensions Secretary, his ability to drive forward this agenda. No, Liz was a colleague who I was happy to serve with in government but the reality is...
So you think Pat can get the vote through in a way that...
Let me finish the point. If you were to give me one Pat McFadden up against a hundred Conservative MPs, I would take Pat McFadden's judgment and ability to work with colleagues both out of government like Alan Milburn, who I also served in the cabinet with and other colleagues within parliament in taking forward the reform agenda. But the reality is it was your Conservative government that left literally hundreds of thousands of young people on the scrap heap where we are ultimately paying them for failure as Andy said today rather than helping them into work. We've done this before. I don't understand why you increase the cost of employing people.
Well, it's why we changed the health element of the universal credit. Should we be in a position where a young person with a health condition effectively has benefits in perpetuity or should we recognise what we'd want for all of our kids, which is if there is a young person with mental health challenges, we support them. We make sure...
If you have greater faith in Pat McFadden, then you'll have faith that he uniquely can bring through a series of proposals to cut the welfare bill and get the support of Labour MPs. So, when can we expect those votes to happen?
So, do you support the youth guarantee?
Well, I think it's a bizarre situation where Labour is paying businesses to take people on for a short period of time when it doesn't deal with the fundamental reality that you increase national insurance particularly on part-time workers in a way that businesses are not wanting to employ people and you increased employment legislation. So you did two major things that made it very difficult.
So first of all we inherited a black hole as a consequence of the financial mismanagement of your work. You were in government. Please can you just...
If you could let me finish a sentence then I'll try and address your substantive questions. Firstly why did we have to raise the employer's contribution to national insurance because we inherited a fiscal mess which was a direct consequence not just of the Conservatives' general time in government but in particular Liz Truss's time in office. And it does seem eccentric that Andrew Griffith has now been promoted to shadow chancellor, but that reveals Kemi's judgment. That's for her to account for. Secondly, in relation to your assertion that it's not legitimate to support as the UK government the ability of young people to get back into the employment strategy. I personally think you're wrong. I think we have a moral duty as well as a political and economic obligation to help these young people not only get closer to...
You disagree with that. That's as...
I don't think your strategy...
You made your point. I want to move on to talk about defence spending because that's another issue that is really coming down the tracks, isn't it? Henry, in terms of the pledges that have been made, are we any clearer where Andy Burnham wants to go with the pledges on?
Well, there was an interesting exchange towards the end of Prime Minister's Questions there where Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, who's a Labour MP, but the chair of the Cross-Party Defence Select Committee, asked in very stark language whether Andy Burnham was going to commit to spending 3% of national income of GDP on defence by 2030. Now, Andy Burnham at the start of his answer said he'd made that commitment, which he hasn't. And I don't think we should think that he was making that commitment there. I suspect he thought it was a broader question than it was. I'm sure that's being cleared up in a briefing for journalists now, which takes place after every PMQs. But assuming that he hasn't just made that very significant commitment at PMQs there, it is a question that is going to be asked not just by Labour MPs, as you heard there, but by MPs of other parties, I'm sure again and again. And there is a particularly acute dilemma for Andy Burnham and even more particularly for John Healey the chancellor because John Healey resigned, arguably delivered the coup de grâce to Keir Starmer's premiership when he resigned as defence secretary specifically because he said that it was wrong to not commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 and that in not doing so Kemi and Rachel Reeves were making Britain less safe. Now, John Healey is now saying entirely understandably and typically that it will have to wait for a spending review next year. That is typical for a chancellor. But what is untypical is having a chancellor who resigned as defence secretary over that specific issue. I think it is hard to see how that line is going to last till a spending review.
Yeah, Douglas, I mean, what do you say to that? Surely not bringing this...
So, let's start with the numbers. We inherited 2.4% of GDP being spent on defence. The Conservatives repeatedly in your manifestos promised 2.5 and never once managed 2.5. And in the words of Ben Wallace, hollowed out the British armed forces. So we committed to 2.5%, we've already moved from 2.4% to 2.7% on the way to that NATO target of 3.5% by 2035. What has been set out and Henry's exactly right both by the chancellor and indeed by the prime minister is that at the spending review that will happen next spring, we will set out that pathway to get to 3.5%. But defence spending has risen...
Because that is obviously the sooner target, isn't it? The earlier targets.
Well, the commitment that's been made by the government is that we will set out the pathway to 3.5% by 2035 at the time of the spending review.
We've been put in another holding pattern. I agree, Henry, that that was the most interesting exchange with Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi. There is a very serious escalation in tensions with Russia right now and we can't really afford to be put in another holding pattern. So...
Why didn't your government do it?
The threat from Russia was there. The threat from Putin was there. You can't say that.
Poured enormous amount of support into Ukraine and Rishi did put additional money into defence.
But in terms of the defence budget, as you say, former Conservative defence secretary saying you hollowed out the armed forces.
Well, we were putting more money into defence. The security picture changed as we were going through government and that's when we responded of 2.5%.
I'm not scoring points here. I'm just saying your manifesto said 2.5%. Why during the entire time of the Conservatives being in office from 2010 until 2024, never once did you hit your own set target of 2.5% of GDP being spent on defence?
Well, towards the end of that parliament, we did start to increase defence spending. And as you'll see in this parliament...
Why didn't you hit this parliament? The situation has changed remarkably. If you look at other European defence budgets, they are all now having to rapidly increase their defence spending. Douglas, the point is that the defence situation is deteriorating markedly. The question everybody's asking now is does Labour understand that we need to escalate that spending very rapidly to accommodate that changing situation and John Healey resigned for this? We've now been put in another holding situation and the reason this matters is because you have a procurement pipeline that needs to get moving if we are going to rearm to the scale that we need to deal with the increasing threat and we don't have an answer to that question.
Okay, brief answer on Douglas and there's one more thing I want to talk about for...
We're not in a holding pattern. Defence expenditure has already risen from the 2.4% we inherited to the 2.7%. We are setting out a pathway in the spending review. But don't judge us by our words, judge us by our deeds. We're actually the party who's already exceeded our manifesto commitment. And despite the obfuscation from Julia, the sad reality is the Conservatives did not once in those 14 years meet their own manifesto target of 2.
I just want very quickly to have a listen to something from yesterday because Andy Burnham talked about number 10 in the north. Have a listen to this when he was talking about water companies.
Can anyone in this house say that the water industry is sufficiently accountable to their constituents? Can anyone in... okay, Northern Ireland we will... oh, Scotland, sorry, my apologies. I know in Scotland there are models elsewhere which we can follow. Mr. Speaker.
So we a lot of talk about Manchester of course because he was the former mayor of Greater Manchester. Has he forgotten about Scotland?
No, I can assure you he visited Scotland in the first four days in office. I met with the first minister indeed the deputy first minister with Andy and coming into office. But the point he makes in relation to the water industry is a fair one. In East Lothian we've got some of the best beaches anywhere in the UK. We've still got challenges in relation to sewage notwithstanding Scottish Water. We've still got challenges in relation to very significant pay rises being given to the executives of Scottish Water.
So you're not worried of accountability concentrating too much on English cities.
No, honestly, I mean we...
I mean there are some Labour MPs in other parts of England.
Let me just let me finish the point. I mean we were if you like an early adopter of devolution. We've had the most comprehensive devolution solution in Scotland for the last 25 years. For me, the fact that Andy has set out such an ambitious agenda for England, establishing number 10 for the north, giving new powers to metro mayors is going to make the UK a more democratic, more exciting, and more habitable place for...
Very quickly. Do you think Downing Street will be pleased with today how it's gone?
Yeah, and relieved, I think, but there's plenty more common moments to come.
Okay, thank you very much. That's all for today. Thank you to all my guests and I will be back tomorrow with more politics live at 12:15 which will of course be here on BBC Two and the iPlayer. Please do join me then.
Hello and welcome to Global Eye from the BBC World Service. Each week we come to you from around the world, bringing you our very best global investigative journalism and unmissable reporting. Reporting that goes further. This is Global Eye. Watch on BBC iPlayer.
It's back with a twist. Welcome to MasterChef. There's special guest judges. Hello everybody. A fiery Italian maestro. You ready? And spicy new challenges. I think he's a little bit nervous. It gives it that little Italian zest. I've got an idea and it's going to blow your socks off. Just drop that egg in. Oh, come on. Going in. Feels pretty good. Celebrity MasterChef. I like it. Watch all this week's episodes now on BBC iPlayer.
Tiptoeing towards the edge in half an hour. But first, make as much noise as you like inside this house.
Hello everybody. Welcome back to a very special champions week on House of Games. We're joined by four former winners. And at the end of the week, somebody has taken home a pot of gold. Who is it going to be? Going to be one of these four people. Vicky Stone, Sally Phillips, Ricky Haywood-Williams. Oh, Dan Walker.
What a week we're having. On Monday, our champion was Vicky. On Tuesday, our champion was Sally, which means logically Ricky could be your day today.
Please be Ricky Wednesday.
That'd be nice, wouldn't it?
A win from the north end of the studio at some point, we think, this week.
We had a chat before this program. We're enjoying ourselves.
We're just enjoying ourselves.
Enjoying yourselves. I would enjoy yourself a little bit less and score a few more points. That's how I would.
Yeah, but me and Ricky, yeah, honestly, we're just enjoying ourselves. We don't really... the win is not a big thing for us. We don't really count the points, anything like that.
That's because all the prizes are down this end of the table.
We're happy for Vicky and Sally.
Shall we take a little look at today's prizes? Sally yesterday took home the golden fondue set. And on Monday, Vicky took home a golden tool kit. But let's take a look at today's golden prizes for our champions.
Whoa. Well, well, well. We have a golden cafetiere. That's new.
A golden decanter. The golden Russian dolls. Lovely. Some lovely bathroom accessories there. All in gold. And a golden watch. What do we think, Dan? What do you fancy?
I'm just interested in the level of detail. The toilet brush. Does it have your face on the bristles?
I mean, I don't know, but knowing the people who make these things, I wouldn't put it past them.
